Vallejo Bay MHP v. John Riggieri

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: December 12, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-03540
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 VALLEJO BAY MHP, No. 2:25-cv-03540-DC-JDP (PS) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER SUA SPONTE REMANDING CASE TO SOLANO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT 14 JOHN RIGGIERI, (Doc. Nos. 1, 3, 4) 15 Defendant. 16 17 This matter is before the court on Defendant John Riggieri’s notice of removal and 18 motions to e-file and to permit him in court access to his phone. (Doc. Nos. 1, 3, 4.) For the 19 reasons explained below, the court will sua sponte remand this case to the Solano County 20 Superior Court due to a lack of subject matter jurisdiction and deny Defendant’s motions as 21 having been rendered moot. 22 BACKGROUND 23 On September 25, 2025, Plaintiff Vallejo Bay MHP filed an unlawful detainer action 24 brought under California state law against Defendant in Solano County Superior Court, Case No. 25 CL25-08853. (Doc. No. 1 at 1, 22.) On December 8, 2025, Defendant filed a pro se notice of 26 removal to remove that unlawful detainer action to this federal court. (Id. at 2.) Also on December 27 8, 2025, Defendant filed motions to e-file and permit him in court access to his phone. (Doc. Nos. 28 3–4.) 1 LEGAL STANDARD 2 “Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of 3 America, 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). A defendant may remove any action from state court to 4 federal court when the federal court has original jurisdiction over the matter. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). 5 Removal to federal court is proper when a case filed in state court poses a federal question or 6 where there is diversity of citizenship among the parties, and the amount in controversy exceeds 7 $75,000. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332(a). 8 The party removing the action has the burden of establishing grounds for federal 9 jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence. Hansen v. Grp. Health Coop., 902 F.3d 1051, 10 1057 (9th Cir. 2018) (citing Geographic Expeditions, Inc. v. Est. of Lhotka ex rel. Lhotka, 599 11 F.3d 1102, 1107 (9th Cir. 2010)). “If at any time before final judgment it appears that the district 12 court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). 13 Removal statutes are strictly construed against federal jurisdiction. Grancare, LLC v. Thrower by 14 & through Mills, 889 F.3d 543, 550 (9th Cir. 2018) (citing Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 15 (9th Cir. 1992)). A federal court must remand the case to state court if there is any doubt as to the 16 right of removal. Id.; Matheson v. Progressive Specialty Ins. Co., 319 F.3d 1089, 1090 (9th Cir. 17 2003). 18 Federal question jurisdiction is set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1331. “The presence or absence of 19 federal-question jurisdiction is governed by the ‘well-pleaded complaint rule,’ which provides 20 that federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of the 21 plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 386 (1987). 22 Under the well-pleaded complaint rule, federal courts look to “what necessarily appears in the 23 plaintiff’s statement of his [or her] own claim in the bill or declaration, unaided by anything 24 alleged in anticipation of avoidance of defenses which it is thought the defendant may interpose.” 25 Cal. v. U.S., 215 F.3d 1005, 1014 (9th Cir. 2000) (citations omitted). Accordingly, “a case may 26 not be removed to federal court on the basis of a federal defense . . . even if the defense is 27 anticipated in the plaintiff’s complaint, and even if both parties concede that the federal defense is 28 the only question truly at issue.” Caterpillar, Inc., 482 U.S. at 393; see also Vaden v. Discover 1 Bank, 556 U.S. 49, 70 (2009) (“It does not suffice to show that a federal question lurks 2 somewhere inside the parties’ controversy, or that a defense or counterclaim would arise under 3 federal law.”). 4 Alternatively, 28 U.S.C. § 1332 governs diversity jurisdiction. Section 1332 states that 5 “[t]he district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in 6 controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is 7 between—(1) citizens of different States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Courts are “to decide what the 8 amount in controversy is from the complaint itself, unless it appears or is in some way shown that 9 the amount stated in the complaint is not claimed ‘in good faith.’” Horton v. Liberty Mut. Ins. 10 Co., 367 U.S. 348, 353 (1961). A “defendant's notice of removal need include only a plausible 11 allegation that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold.” Dart Cherokee 12 Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens, 574 U.S. 81, 89 (2014). 13 ANALYSIS 14 In his notice of removal, Defendant identifies both federal question and diversity 15 jurisdiction as his bases for removal. (Doc. No. 1 at 4–5.) The court will address both grounds for 16 federal jurisdiction in turn. 17 As to federal question jurisdiction, Defendant appears to assert the court has jurisdiction 18 because his constitutional right to due process under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments has 19 been violated. (Id. at 4.) However, based on the well-pleaded complaint rule articulated above, 20 removal cannot be based on a defense, counterclaim, crossclaim, or third-party claim raising a 21 federal question. Caterpillar Inc., 482 U.S. at 392; Vaden, 556 U.S. at 49. The complaint raises 22 no federal question. Therefore, the court lacks federal question jurisdiction. 23 As to diversity jurisdiction, Defendant asserts he is domiciled in New Hampshire and that 24 the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. (Id. at 4–5.) Even assuming there is complete 25 diversity of citizenship, the amount in controversy here does not exceed $75,000. The complaint 26 was filed in a limited civil case and does not allege damages in excess of $75,000. (Id. at 25.) 27 Instead, the caption of the complaint expressly states that the amount demanded does not exceed 28 $10,000. (Id.) “A defendant ‘bears the burden of actually proving the facts to support jurisdiction 1 | including the jurisdictional amount.’” Fed. Home Loan Mortg. Corp. v. Herrera, No. 12-cv- 2 | 00403-LJO-MJS, 2012 WL 948412, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 20, 2012) (citing Sanchez v. 3 | Monumental Life Ins., 102 F.3d 398, 403 (9th Cir. 1996)). Here, Defendant does not establish that 4 | the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. As such, Defendant has not established the amount in 5 | controversy for purposes of diversity jurisdiction. 6 Thus, because the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, remand of this case to the Solano 7 | County Superior Court is appropriate and mandatory. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). 8 CONCLUSION 9 For the reasons explained above: 10 1. This matter is remanded to Solano County Superior Court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 11 § 1447(c), for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; 12 2. Defendant’s motions to e-file and to permit him in court access to his phone (Doc. 13 Nos. 3, 4) are DENIED as having been rendered moot by this order; and 14 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. 15 16 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. □ 1g | Dated: _December 11, 2025 UC Dena Coggins 19 United States District Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28